What does the Fields Open say about the World Golf Rankings?

There is no question Wie is one of the best woman's golfer. If she plays a full schedule, I think she will consistently compete for the title. There is no question, she is the 2 best woman's golfer. If they has a tournament in PGA course, she will be the only golfer to break par. She is the most exciting woman golfer.

Wie will probably be number 2 in the next rankings and that will probably irk some people even more.
Poor William!

By the way, I think the only problem with the rankings is that it gives foreign tours too much status. The lpga is the best tour and the rankings should reflect this.

Ironically, if that was put into effect that the lpga was given a higher status, and the Japanese tour less for example, it would mean that Paula's two recent Japan wins wouldn't mean as much and her ranking would fall, and that would leave Michelle Wie as a clear 2nd.

If players want to be ahead of Wie in the rankings, maybe they should try harder to finish ahead of her in tournaments.

Don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back Jennifer. It's just one tournament, under the most favorable conditions possible for Michelle. What happens when Michelle finishes 13th in her next tournament, will you be calling for her to slide down the rankings accordingly, of course not. The fact that Michelle finished where she was ranked was a statistical anomoly and shows that she has tons of game, just not quite enough to win yet.

It would help if there was a good explanation of how the numbers are calculated. All the "fact sheet" has are vague statements like "The Rolex Rankings will share the established men's world rankings philosophy of awarding points based on the field strength and evaluate a player's performance over a rolling two-year period weighted in favor of the current year with even more importance placed on the most recent 13 weeks"

What are the weightings for different tours/results/fields/time periods/etc? With more information, players may not agree with the weightings, but at least they would have some understanding.

That's typical of you Jennifer - you're the consummate Wie-nut. The rankings are not flawed because Michelle comes out #3, the fact that she comes out #3 exposes the flaws.

Not enough events required for ranking penalizes full time players. No way should Michelle be ranked ahead of Christie Kerr who has a better record in the majors and over the same two year period. In addition, the tours and their tournaments are not weighted equitably, they are weighted equally. Yuri Fudoh!!?? Ai Miyazato!!?? ROFLMAO - at the ratings, and at you, Jennifer.

According to the COO of the LPGA when he was asked about the 15 event minimum, it was done because some of the tours (e.g. the KLPGA) have many fewer events and a smaller minimum would eliminate lots of their players from the list.

Between Wie and Kerr 3 of the top 4 Major finishes in the last two years beonged to Wie--a 2, a T3, and a 4. Kerr's best 3 were T3, m T5 and T5. Wie also had a T13m a T14 and a T23 in her 6 Najorsm while Kerr also had a T10, a T11, a T17m, a T27m and a T33. In her 6 Majors for the two yearsm Wie finished ahead of Kerr 6 times. She had 5 strokes less than Kerr in her two 2004 Majors--and while they split the four Majors less year, Wie had 3 fewer strokes overall.

If Kerr has a better record in th Majors--I don't see it.

16 years old. Ranked #3 in the world and still a part time golfer. Worth $15M WoW.
Can it get any better than that.

Yeah, she could actually win a tournament.

Compare the LPGA ratings in Golf World(ESPN) which include Wie--but her in 10th place behind Annika, Creamer, and also Kerr, Miyazato, Ochoa, Christina Kin, Gulbis, Pressel, and Grace Park. Last year Gulbis had two T3s, her only top 3 finishes in over 100 pro events on the LPGA--BUT SHE WAS PUT AHEAD OF WIE IN THE RATINGS.
At least Wie has a 2, two T2s and a T3 in a lot fewer appearances--and it is not as if Gulbis has any wins.

Dang, the way Michelle's going she just might win an LPGA event before she turns 18! I know it's a bit of a stretch, but she's got two years to do it. She'd be the youngest ever if she pulls it off.

I like being a fan of Wie.

I really felt real bad when Wie scored only 70 on the second day at the Fields Open. I hoped she hit 60.

I hope she will do better next time.

I am also happy she did better than Pressel and Creamer did.

I hope she will do better than them in the future.

Correction:

I hope she will do better than they will in the future.

So is "Torn" a new curmudgeon, or a recycled, relabled old one?

ROTFLMAO - were you really rolling on the floor, laughing your ass off? That's some funny stuff there! Perhaps Jen should send her blogs to Jerry Seinfeld, he can use them in his stand-up tour. A new career opportunity for you, Jen!

The rankings are like any other rankings in any other sport. A subjective comparison (how any two players match up across many rounds of golf and tournaments) given a quantitative structure. You can get the data to say almost anything you want. Had the criteria been different and Wie been 10th, some would complain about that.

Bottom line, Wie posted some excellent scores on days 1 and 3, she came back from a big deficit to finish one stroke off the win, and she showed poise in playing through a bad round on day 2. For the detractors, she didn't win. So they can continue to hang their hat on their rallying cry, "Winless Wie!" Meantime, she's a Bamberger away from opening her career with two top-5 finishes. Don't think Tiger did that at 20, let alone 16.

I know it sounds impossible but I wish she would win 4 majors this year.

she = Michelle Wie

Here are Michelle's stats from the Fields Open:

Fairways hit 30 Rank: T30

Driving: 293.5 Rank: T5

GIR 45 Rank: T-1

Putts 28.67 (86) Rank: T41

Putting is still the thing she needs to improve to win. If she gets it down to 27.50 she would win many times.

Meena Lee putted an average of 26.33 (T4).

Seon Wha Lee putted an average of 24.00 (1).

They both hit more fairways but less GIR than Michelle.

I have to say in reading all these posts about Michelle Wie on this blog and others...

I don't understand the hate she engenders from other people.

What exactly has she done to attract so much animosity?

She seems like a great kid , very respectful.

She showed a lot of class over that whole Bamberger mess when she was disqualified--definitely more than Bamberger.

She treats other players with respect, and doesn't make rude, catty comments about others in the media (ala Morgan Pressel )

No golfer in the history of golf has accomplished what she has at age 16.

She has numerous Top 5 finishes on the LPGA tour.

No female golfer has scored as low as her on the PGA tour.

If its her dream to play with the men and women -who are we to stand in her way. Wouldn't we want to follow through on our own dreams especially when we were younger?

You hate her endorsment deals or all the attention she gets ?

Well blame the companies endorsing her and all the media clamoring to cover her not her

You hate her world ranking?

Blame the people who did the calculating and devised the system not her

She's a good kid - leave her alone.

We hate her obsessive, borderline delusional fans and a fawning media that attempts to cram her not yet achieved greatness down our throats. I have never and would never attack Michelle Wie personally, she is not the problem, her fans are. One thing I find so ammusing is that her fans keep gushing on and on about how great she is and how far she hits the ball and how she has shots in her bag that other women simply don't have and on and on, but when she fails to win they fall back on her age and the tired line about how she still has nearly two years to win and still be the youngest winner---Here's the point, with all of her tools she should be winning right now, she should be dismantling her competition, crushing her fellow teen rivals, after all this is the girl that is going to be beating the men and playing in the Masters, right! Stop with your excessive bragging about Wie followed by crying over the fact that some people want her to win and another thing stop trying to make her detractors out to be the bad guys, nobody is attacking her, they are attacking her fans and the fact that she has not yet won, that's all.

World ranking is perfect. It gives us something to talk about. But I am sure it will get better. Perhaps they should honor more points for
having played more tournaments
LPGA events vs JLPGA events
Best score in a single year
Age of play
etc, etc.

Morgan Pressel should learn some manners. Perhaps she has a contract with Doubleday in the works. How about "I know wie like no one else."

What if your kid is Michelle? How would you feel about a forum like this?

Why it is that about 1/3 of players who made the cut are Coreans or Corean-Americans? Why not New Zealand, Sweden, Japan, Great Britain? What we do they know that we don't?

** Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
I know it sounds impossible but I wish [Wie] would win 4 majors this year. **

... or even 1 tournament.

Does that sound impossible too, Brian?

-George

Stop with your excessive bragging about Wie followed by crying over the fact that some people want her to win and another thing stop trying to make her detractors out to be the bad guys, nobody is attacking her, they are attacking her fans and the fact that she has not yet won, that's all.

___________________________________________________________

Why would you care that folks are rooting for Michelle Wie? And...why are you so rabid about denigrating her fanbase? Are you a Pressel fan? You sound like that ilk.

TAYLOR MADE

I think I can speak for just about all Michelle Wie's fans. We want Michelle Wie to win. We have nothing against people who want Michelle Wie to win.

"...nobody is attacking her, they are attacking her fans and the fact that she has not yet won, that's all."

Wie won the WAPL at 13. Last year she was co-medalist in qualifying for the APL--no special sponsor's exemption there. She made it into match play at the APL, and she won her first 3 matches. But let us just look at the LPGA. There she has yet to win. In 9 events since the start of 2005 her median finish was a tie for 3rd and 4th at the British. No one on the LPGA except Annika can approach such a record--but rather than celebrating such an accomplishment, you choose to attack the fact that she has not yet won. In other words, you choose to attack the one weak spot in her record, and somehow you see that as not attacking Michelle Wie. Allow me to inform you that Michelle Wie does not see things that way. She talked about people saying hurtful things, and the FACT that there was a person on the other end of those comments. Would it be to much to ask people to do unto Michelle as she does unto others--and more specifically, treat Michelle Wie the way she treats Morgan Pressel. For that matter, let us also treat Morgan Pressel the way Michelle Wie treats Morgan Pressel.

Jim C. You have expressed my sentiments exactly. I second your motion.

Taylormade,

I would like you to do an honest survey of all the blogs on Michelle Wie here,

I think you'll find more "obsessive, borderline, delusional" things said by her detractors than anyone else.

Taylormade

Attacking the fact that she has not yet won ??

Pressel hasn't won in the LPGA--

Gulbis is 0-111, hasn't won on the LPGA, and has been around for 4 years!

Michelle just turned pro a week before her birthday in October!

I don't see you focusing on them -just Michelle.

Jim is right-- only Annika has as much consistent high finishes as Michelle does. (she was 4th even in the event she was disqualified from)

Being critical of a weak spot in a professional athletes resume, when that athlete has been hyped as the future of the game is not an attack or even a critcism for that matter, it is a statement of fact. I recognize Michelle's wonderful accomplishments to date and also see her talent and potential as second to none. You will not hear me call her deragatory names or make any personal comments about her, you will only hear me question the path that she has taken to achieve her goals and her ability to win. I am critical of her fans, because of their almost blind devotion and unrealistic expectations for a teen golfer who has yet to prove that she can win on the LPGA level.

Well said Jim.

I would add when we watch them play we see a much older and polished player that belies their age. This is where high expectations are created.

When we listen to them speak we are listening to couple of super achieving high school kids. They are not all that polished when they interview and sound exactly like the kids I've known, including my own.

If Morgan and Michelle were guys and finishing as high up in the order at PGA events they would be touted as the new Golf Gods or the next "Tiger" by the same detractors in this forum. The only difference is they are female and we should accept the fact most males will hold them to a different standard. It is inbred in their DNA.

After all Jim, sexism is a disease well entrenched in our society at all levels.

Perhaps the male Pressel or Wie supporters were raised a little differently with respect for females bred into our DNA.

Karen this is exactly what I'm talking about. I have never criticized the records of the women you mentioned above, because to the best of my knowledge none of their fans are hyping these players as the future of not only women's golf, but the game in general. Not even the most diehard Morgan Pressel fan thinks she will someday win Men's golf tournaments. Natalie Gulbis is more "eye candy" then dominant LPGA player. You're angry response to my innocous email only serves to make my point for me--Michelle's fans are the problem for me, not Michelle. All I did was state a fact--Michelle Wie has not won an LPGA tournament.

As a fan of the LPGA I am glad they have some sort of rankings. But even I must admit these are kind of skewed. They are definitely to penal towards players who played all the time on the LPGA tour and played well I may add. And thats not in reference to Michelle being number 3. I'm not one of the so called Wie Warriors but am a fan of hers. If she played full time on the tour she would easily be one of the top 5 players now. There is no denying her talent. My main disagreement with the ratings is giving equal credence to the JPL tour. While I admire Ai Miyazitos personality and how she handles the Japenese media crush that surrounds her, she will never be a dominant force here like she was there, Q school nonwithstanding. The overall talent level of the LPGA makes my predictions for her future maybe 1 win a year. To be #6 is a bit high in my estimation. but time will tell who is right about the rankings. I know this, if all the Korean players were still in Korea playing a Korean tour, that tour in my estimation would be the closest to the LPGA. 6 first time winners last year including 2 major championships, and having the last 2 players standing at the first 2 tournaments this years speaks volumes. But yet not the publicity for them, not from the media or announcers. Some announcers who will go nameless even show disdain a Korean is leading and won't acknowlede it. I am a golf fan as well as play the game. I love the PGA and LPGA. To me the LPGA is quickly reaching the stage the PGA is, in that you have one dominant player, Annika ala Tiger, and many others who could win on any given week.The overall talent level is getting deeper. Annika is now 35 and maybe has another 3 years of being totally dominant. The big question who is the player that takes the throne. Many young ones state this as their goal. My money is on Michelle.

Don't forget Randy, Michelle is a Korean-American and eats Kim Chi daily. This is what gives the Koreans an advantage over the rest of the field. Kim Chi Power!

I need to try this Kim Chi to shave some strokes of my own game, lol.

They are not guys One-Putt. The level of competition, overall depth and talent on the PGA tour will never along two young teens do compete and finsh at that high a level. This coupled with the basic scientific differences between men and women(especially women maturing at earlier ages then men) make this comparison innapropriate. Your claim of sexism is not fair or accurate, at least not in my case. I recognize all these young women for their tremendous talent, potential and yes results. I am just a little more grounded when it comes to predicting the future of the Michelle wie and the rest of the young stars in the making.

TaylorMade in your post from 13:34 above, you state in part "...hyped as the future of the game ..." Indeed that is the case, her future is being hyped. The problem that I and a number of Wie fans have with your criticism is that you appear to consider "the future" to be today. A lack of wins is only a flaw on a current resume if it were reasonable to expect wins to be there at the present time.

Yes, I do frequently speculate about what Michelle goals might be for the future. I am not is the least disturbed that she has not attained those goals today.

** Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]

I think I can speak for just about all Michelle Wie's fans. We want Michelle Wie to win. We have nothing against people who want Michelle Wie to win. **

jim, I HOPE you have nothing against them.

Because if you were against people who want Michelle to win ... and also want Michelle to win...

Well, let's just say we don't want to add "Self-hating" to paranoid, obsessive, defensive, narcissistic and the other phobias that already afflict you and the other Wie Warriors.

-George

george,

I know it might sound impossible but I wish Michelle would win a major on the LPGA this year.

george,

You deserve more than anyone else these words - "paranoid, obsessive, defensive, narcissistic and the other phobias."

It's unfair for people to criticized michelle for wanting to compete against man. If Cremer, pressel,Kerr even anika have ability to compete against the men they will do it in heart beat. They do not want to be embarass, because None of them will break 80 except Anika.

If Wie takes over at number 2 on the rankings, it is going to be really funny how the anti-Wie brigade react.

If Wie moves up to #2, it will be funny to see how Creamer reacts too. She was quoted last week as saying "I think everybody else knows who's the number one and number two player."

Paul,
I'm betting that if MW reaches #2 this week, Paula will keep her Lips tightly sealed and bite the bullet. But it may be her incentive to produce great results in the next tournament.
Taylormade....I really wonder about where your head is at. What possible difference does it make to you how MW arrives at her destination? If she wants to compete against the men, I say go for it. She cannot compete on the LPGA full time till she is 18 so why should she not play where she wants to?
You speak of the Wie fanatics but there are more than a few people on these blogs that have a difficult time dealing with what she has acheived and what she is doing. Chill out bud. Sit back and relax, ignore the hype and enjoy some very good golf.
If you keep your blood pressure high like this, you'll have a serious problem. You're opinions will not make any difference in how she and her team do things so relax.

I was initially shocked to find Michelle ranked 3rd in the Rolex World golf ranking. But after looking at the ESPN Golf World: Top 30 players for 2006 I think 3rd is spot on! And I would not be surprised if Michelle moved to 2nd after her strong finish at Fields Open.

I don't think Creamer should be surprised either. After all, she barely made the cut. I strongly feel that this will make the girls work harder at their game and we should expect a level of female golf never seen before.

Ok Jen, my curiousity is really and truly up now.
What happened to Baldwin? Surely he isn't a recent convert to the Wie camp.
I cannot believe that he hasn't weighed in on these discussions or written another of his famous blogs. He hasn't been sick, has he?

Just curious of course.

Maybe he covered the Fields Open and got to meet Wie and felt bad about everything he said before.

Or

he finally got smart and figured out the Wie bashing got old.

Comment from: Cheryl [Visitor]
"I have to say in reading all these posts about Michelle Wie on this blog and others...
I don't understand the hate she engenders from other people.
What exactly has she done to attract so much animosity?"

It's not what she has done, but rather what she hasn't done. "WIN" No-Win-Wie has not won...and after only one start, she is ranked number 3 ???? A Rookie after one start ???

Get Real ! ! !

The perfomance measures used to conjure up these rankings sure as hell did not include number of wins.

Fans of Wie will continue to tout her prodigious ability and her age. Detractors will continue to bash her winlessness and the hype for a winless player.

Frankly, she SHOULD be ranked in the top-five LPGA players based on raw ability, but her total results don't merit the ranking. Reality check, she could play ANY tournament she wanted based upon sponsor's exemptions, because of her popularity and accompanying media frenzy. She CHOOSES to primarily play in Hawaii, hopefully to stay close to school, but likely influenced by her course knowledge. After all, we've all played with a guy on his home course(s) where he knows every blade of grass by name, is familiar with each grain of sand in the bunker, and can probably read greens in his sleep. Once pulled from the familiarity of his home environs, he can't perform to the same levels, which is why rankings should be based on an entire year, rather than allowing someone to essentially handpick the tournaments to be ranked. It would be like ranking NCAA basketball teams entirely on their home record.

Is she the second, third, or fourth best female golfer in the world? Probably. Does she deserve to be ranked by the LPGA in the top five? Probably not, because her talent hasn't been evidenced by her results over an entire season. Think of it from your perspective, would you want to be reviewed based on your cumulative output for a year, or compared to someone who did 1/4 the number of projects you did?

John D, while nobody yet knows any really pertinent details about how the Rolex rankings are calculated, I can absolutely assure you they do include wins. What you appear to have difficulty accepting is that they also include every other position of finish and measure total performance.

I do believe that the system in use this year will probably not be the exact system used next year, or the year after that. I suspect it will take four or five years before the various parties to controling the rankings can sort out a reasonably realistic balance. This will be especially true of with respect to finding a balance between limited play tours and full tours that does not unfairly favor the hot shot coming on the tour over the veteran player who has brought their game up significantly in recent days but still carries the burden of two previous years of lesser performance.

Oh, and Jennifer...
On the Mario/Rolex rankings, Geoff Ogilvy is now the #1 player on the PGA tour.

---- Yawn ------

ToddCommish,

You make a passionate case for the "home course" theory; but could you expain to me how it accounts for the fact that only one of the fifteen tournaments that produced Michelle's current ranking was held in Hawaii? The other 14 appear to have been in continental US, France and England or am I mistaken?

I can and have sympathized with your second point. I agree that something may need adjusting in that area.

Todd, only 1 of Michelle's events that went in to her Rolex number was played in Hawaii, the 2005 SBS Open. Her other Hawaii events have been PGA or amateur events. I don't think home field advantage was a factor.

** Brian:
You deserve more than anyone else these words - "paranoid, obsessive, defensive, narcissistic and the other phobias." **

Wow, Brian. What a great comeback! What's your next sizzler? "bounces off me and sticks to you?"

On the other hand, your skill at repetition and your lack of originality puts you in great company with the Wie Warriors. Maybe they'll promote you to Staff Sergeant in Charge of Pretzel Logic.

-George

george,

Are you more upset because I called you "paranoid, obsessive, defensive, narcissistic and the other phobias?"

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Comment from: putt4par [Visitor]
Ok Jen, my curiousity is really and truly up now.
What happened to Baldwin? Surely he isn't a recent convert to the Wie camp.
I cannot believe that he hasn't weighed in on these discussions or written another of his famous blogs. He hasn't been sick, has he?

Just curious of course.
***********************************
Baldwin is preparing for one of the 'Inevitables'. (ie, death, tax, and Michelle Wie's win)
Once Michelle wins, he has nothing to write about, so why not just prepare for the future and try to develop something else. Unfortunately, he is not having much luck with other topics....

Just as a point of interest. This tells you how many people think like george, Taylormade and crew.
Do a google search of Wie, Pressel,Creamer Natalie and Annika.

Michelle Wie 2,430,000 hits
Morgan Pressel 282,000
Paula Creamer 257,000
Annika Sorenstam 1,020,000
Natalie Gulbis 324,000

I know, I know it means nothing but the popularity shows and that marketing, despite her (Michelle Wie ) winless state is nothing but great for the LPGA and for womens golf.
Probably doesn't hurt mens golf either

That's just to give all the hackers and whackers something to chew on, lol

** Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
george,

Are you more upset because I called you "paranoid, obsessive, defensive, narcissistic and the other phobias?" **

Brian, it looks like you're missing something. (actually, you're missing a lot of somethings, but for you let's keep it simple.)

You asked, "am I more upset... "

More upset than what?

If you're asking or stating that something is "more" than something else, then you have to list the "something else" to make the logical comparison.

See?

-George

** Comment from: putt4par [Visitor]

** Do a google search of Wie, Pressel,Creamer Natalie and Annika. **

Why, when we have you as our researcher!

**
Michelle Wie 2,430,000 hits
Morgan Pressel 282,000
Paula Creamer 257,000
Annika Sorenstam 1,020,000
Natalie Gulbis 324,000 **

So it just means that you, Coulthard, Norman and John Neal are shut-ins AND have high-speed Internet access?

** I know, I know it means nothing **

Sure it means something. It proves the Wie Warriors have something in common with a broken clock. ;)

** That's just to give all the hackers and whackers something to chew on, LOL **

BTW, Bode Miller has 3.15 million hits via Google.

I guess Bode and Michelle can co-author "The Dummies Guide to Sports Victories." Maybe you'll ghost write it for them.

PARTAY, DUDE!

-George

george,

LOL, I knew you would come after "more."

Anyway no excuse for my sloppiness, so I sincerely apologize for the mistake.

Let me reiterate: Are you upset because I called you "paranoid, obsessive, defensive, narcissistic and the other phobias?"

Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Rolex Ranking methodology which spawned so many questions and comments above are easily answered by "looking it up" online. It's there for all to read. The FAQs state that the methodology is exactly as per the Men's World Wide golf rankings. I say again: "EXACTLY".

Does the anti Michelle crowd have a problem with the Men's ranking methodology?

Hi AhhSoo,

The problem is that the methodology isn't exactly like the Men's. In particular, the Men's rankings require a minimum of 40 tournament appearances in the last two years to qualify for ranking. The Women's only 15. Some also suspect that the weighting factors used for the lesser known tours are significantly different.

All most are asking is for a little more information about what the relative weighting factors are.

After reviewing the situation, I have come to the realization that George, under_par, Wie Blows, Alex, Ronnie and the rest of the Wie haters are right. Michelle should give back the money, clothes and clubs to Nike, the Sony toys and money go back and of course the diamond encrusted Omega has to go along with the millions they paid. It just doesn't seem right that Michelle should make all that money at 16. The shame of it all is impossible to take.

In fact Michelle should give up golf altogether and take up a more feminine sport like knitting or hooking rugs. After all golf started out as a men's only sport and why should it change?

Yes the Wie Haters are right and we must accept the fact and move on with our lives.

Looks like Wie made it to number 2, Wie is 10.03, Creamer is 9.44 ( http://www.lpga.or.jp/ ).

Meena Lee moved up 34 places to 15th.

Here it is in english:

http://www.wgwr.net/public/

Well spotted Paul.
Nice to have Michelle as the number 2 ranked player. Well deserved.

ToddCommish said:
Oh, and Jennifer...
On the Mario/Rolex rankings, Geoff Ogilvy is now the #1 player on the PGA tour.
*********************************

What are you on about?
Since when has Geoff Ogilvy's 2 year average put him at that level?
Wie's average has put her where she rightly belongs.

The LPGA web site is a little slow in posting the new Rolex Standings.

Are they always late with postings?

Or is there a little concern over tour members reactions?
Also, I am not too clear on this ( I'm sure someone will delight in setting me straight) but is Morgan not to be included in the standings until she has the full 15 qualifying events in her resume? Oh Georgie, I am sure you must have something pithy to say... No I don't lisp.

On the Mario/Rolex rankings, Geoff Ogilvy is now the #1 player on the PGA tour.
*********************************

What are you on about?
Since when has Geoff Ogilvy's 2 year average put him at that level?
Wie's average has put her where she rightly belongs.
----------------------------------

Uh, Norman, if you read the column above, Jennifer compares the Rolex "rankings" to the results from this ONE tournament. Apparently, the parallels (and the sarcasm) were lost on you.

And Michelle Wie's average over the last two seasons (especially considering she placed -0- in the vast majority of tournaments) doesn't deserve the 2nd slot. Hey, I agree she's one of the top golfers, but to place her 2nd after playing 16 tournaments over 2+ years is kinda ridiculous.

putt2par, Pressel won't be included until she has 15 events. She's at 9 or 10 now. She is not eligible for the "new player" exeption which only requires 8 events because she wasn't a new player 2 years ago (i.e. she had already played an LPGA event).

Not sure why LPGA site is slow. Could be because of their working hours. They are probably all in a meeting trying to decide how to position it.

ToddCommish, nobody "placed" Wie in the number 2 slot, as I'm sure you realize it was a result of the algorithm they use to come up with a number. The 15 event minimum requirement was put in because some of the tours have a small number of events, e.g. I believe the Australian tour has 8. What are you suggesting they change?

btw, what do you mean by "placed -0-"?

OK I retract my earlier post on Michelle quitting Wie Haters. I mean after all this gal is now rated NUMBER TWO in the Women's World Golf Rankings. I mean after all how could wei expect to ask THE SECOND BEST FEMALE GOLFER ON THE PLANET to quit?

If Michelle had taken the money last year she would have averaged $92,000 per event in earnings. This was the SECOND BEST EARNING AVERAGE on the tour after Annika.

The next closest to Michelle in average was Paula Creamer who averaged $63,000 per event.

Paula is lucky Michelle only played eight events in 2005 and not the 25 she entered or she very well might have been third on the money list.

Rolex just confirmed what the Wie Legions have known all along. Michelle really is the SECOND BEST FEMALE GOLFER IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.

I think people put too much emphasis on winning a tournament. If I were one of golf players and if a genie endows one wish, I would choose a runner-up position in every tournament. Nobody would remember the second best and thus can go out in public places without a mob crowding for incessant signatures and photos. The best part is of course earning on annual basis more than $3 million dollars in LPGA or $10 million in PGA. You get the best of both: annual income and a private life.

ToddCommish said:
And Michelle Wie's average over the last two seasons (especially considering she placed -0- in the vast majority of tournaments)
**************************

Please explain what -0- is supposed to mean.

The LPGA has updated their site with the Rolex standings.

"Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
ToddCommish said:
And Michelle Wie's average over the last two seasons (especially considering she placed -0- in the vast majority of tournaments)
**************************

Please explain what -0- is supposed to mean."

Todd's brain cell count maybe?

** Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
george,

LOL, I knew you would come after "more."

Anyway no excuse for my sloppiness, so I sincerely apologize for the mistake.

Let me reiterate: Are you upset because I called you "paranoid, obsessive, defensive, narcissistic and the other phobias?" **

No, yo.

-George

** Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
After reviewing the situation, I have come to the realization that George, under_par, Wie Blows, Alex, Ronnie and the rest of the Wie haters are right. Michelle should give back the money, clothes and clubs to Nike, the Sony toys and money go back and of course the diamond encrusted Omega has to go along with the millions they paid. It just doesn't seem right that Michelle should make all that money at 16. The shame of it all is impossible to take. **

** In fact Michelle should give up golf altogether and take up a more feminine sport like knitting or hooking rugs. After all golf started out as a men's only sport and why should it change? **

** Yes the Wie Haters are right and we must accept the fact and move on with our lives.**

Hi, 1-putt.

Amid the wreckage of your ravings, you were right about only one thing (since if you actually were rational, you would see that none of the Wie Skeptics such as myself have in fact not demanded any of the silly things you want.)

For example, I have posted multiple times that you, I, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Carleton Fiorina, Larry Ellison, and Michelle Wie are not rich enough. I want everyone to be richer. Everyone should have more wealth. That's the capitalistic society I adhere to.

In that spirit, it is true that you were correct about this one concept:

It is indeed time for you and the other Wie Warriors to move on with your lives. Our global economy will function more smoothly when there are fewer shut-ins such as you and the other Wie Warriors, and more people -- like the Wie Skeptics, for example -- who are in the productive sectors of society.

We know the transition from your obsession, paranoia, narcissism, dementia and defensiveness will be difficult, even painful. Rest assured, you will be much happier once you succeed.

-George

p4p...

** Oh Georgie, I am sure you must have something pithy to say... No I don't lisp.**

Pity, that.

Anyway, my researcher, One-Putt, came up with these stats (Although I had to help him with the Bode Miller totals)

Bode Miller 3,150,000 hits
Mithelle Wie 2,430,000 hits
Morgan Prethel 282,000
Paula Creamer 257,000
Annika Thorenstam 1,020,000
Natalie Gulbith 324,000 **

Maybe Mithelle's people can talk to Bode's people.
There's still time for Mithelle and Bode to co-author "Sports Victories for Dummies."

-George

Great idea, One-putt, I guess the Best Singer in the World is "Britney Spears Naked".

"Rolex", "BCS"....etc. They all suck! They will just keep changing the "rules/requirements" to tailor the results to please their own taste.

It is obvious the Rolex/LPGA rankings mean absolutly NOTHING.

John D, why would Rolex want to make someone look good who is sponsored by Omega? Try a little harder with your conspiracy theories.

To lure her away from Omega, of course....Rolex scratches Wie'sback, and the favor is returned.

Very creative John, how much do you want to wager that Wie switches sponsers to Rolex?

John,
The rankings are based on a formula very similar to the mens system.
The only real difference that it is based on a minimum of 15 events.
This is due to the small number of events some women golfers play, for example on the Australian womens tour.

The rankings are fair.

Well golly George, why didn't you include Elvis hits at 23,900,000 hits in your silly rebutal. I mean he just may have been a had something to do with recent womans golf.
As for poor ol' Bode, he can make his own way as the court jestor without any help from you. You have your own niche as the courtyard jestor on this blog.
Bye Geaorge, be a good boy and close the door as you let yourself out, please.

Well if they are based on 15events, how can someone with only one event be ranked?

I am surprized that no one has commented on Michelle officially jumping over Paula Creamer to the number two spot in the rankings that were released at 2:00 pm EST today.

I would have thought that someone would have said something along the lines of:

"Wie jumps Pressel, Rolex jumps the shark."

For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the term, when a television show presents an episode that is so out of touch with its established theme that it alienates its core audience, it is said to have "jumped the shark." The term originated with the television show "Happy Days" which in its final season had an episode where a leading character was water-skiing and literaly jumped over a shark. The scene was ridiculous and was hailed as the point at which everyone knew the series was dead.

So, is this ranking so out of touch that the Rolex Rankings have "jumped the shark" in only their second week? Or is it substantially accurate? I am dying to hear the debate.

For the benefit of all, the new rankings are located at the link above. Given that even the LPGA did not mention anywhere that the new rankings were out, some of you may not have known where to find them.

Quite a change from all the fanfare last week.

**Comment from: putt4par [Visitor]
Well golly George, why didn't you include Elvis hits at 23,900,000 hits in your silly rebutal.**

Because Elvis isn't a sports star?

** I mean he just may have been a had something to do with recent womans golf.**

If you say so.

Whatever it was you were trying to say.

** As for poor ol' Bode, he can make his own way as the court jestor without any help from you. **

Bode probably needs Michelle's help to figure out how to win an event.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. That won't work either.

I guess they'll have to stick to writing that book I suggested they co-author: "Sports Victories for Dummies."

** You have your own niche as the courtyard jestor on this blog. **

Your spelling of jester ensures you won't be giving up the champion clown title any time soon.

** Bye Geaorge, be a good boy and close the door as you let yourself out, please. **

Of course I'll close it. I don't want you to wander into traffic.

-George

John Neal--using the phrase "jumped the shark", jumped the shark two years ago. I'm thinking of junking my Rolex if Michelle climbs any higher. Number 2 in the world without a victory to her credit. They must be counting her local Jennie K. Wilson title when she was 10 years old. What's next a world #1 who has never won a tournament--

Torn, strange as it may seem, what you suggest is quite possible numerically. Were Michelle to complete her year with all top 5 performances but nary a victory, and if the new blood on the tour were to reduce Annika's victory count significantly, that might happen.

The problem is that numerical analysis is an exact science; but the process of defining the formulas used to represent a real world situation are very much an art.

Personally, I believe things will sort themselves out over the next few months to the point that people will be generally satisfied with the overall result, but bitch endlessly about the position of their personal favorites. In short, it will become just like the current World Golf Rankings (The one without Women's in the title).

PS. Sorry that you found "jumping the shark" to be passe, the fact that Michelle jumped Paula was just too close a parallel for me to resist:-)

Regarding the Rolex rankings, I think we all agree that there needs to be some adjustments to the Japanese LPGA points. There is really not much debate on that.

However, the main debate seems to be "is 15 games enough to guage the ranking?"

In my opinion, the number of games played is not much of an issue. Someone says should be 20, but 15 and 20 is not much of a difference and seems like an adhoc argument to exclude Wie. In fact, the only player on top 50 affected by 15 going to 20 is Wie.

What really should be adjusted is the points awarded. In other words, THE 1ST PLACE SHOULD BE AWARDED MORE POINTS IF WINNING IS REGARDED SO HIGHLY. Meena Lee received 60 points for her 1st place in Fields but Wie recieve 20 points for a 3rd place. (2nd place gets 40 maybe? Couldn't confirm because Sunhwa Lee was not on the ranking)

The current system does not award 1st place as much as it should. Instead of 60, probably should double it to 120.

Alas, then Yuri Fudoa will recieve overrated points due to her wins in Japan....

There is no perfect system when you are trying to unify the world.... Maybe too ambitious. Just go with a good ranking system of just the LPGA with more weight on 1st place as I suggested.

Hypothetically, if Wie wins all 4 Majors but plays only 15 events, are you not going to call her the top ranked player by making the minimum number of events to 20 ???

While I am not absolutely certain, I believe that the ratio of first to second to third, etc is based on the ratio used to award the prize money which is an exponential scale. Therefore if 1st is 60 and 3rd is 20 then second was around 35.

Do you really think that winning is six times more important than coming in third when only one stroke separated the two position?

"Comment from: ToddCommish [Visitor] · http://toddcommish.blogspot.com
Great idea, One-putt, I guess the Best Singer in the World is "Britney Spears Naked"."

Well if you say so Toad I will note your vote.

Personally Stevie Nicks gets my vote for best female singer of all time.

"Comment from: george [Visitor]
p4p...

** Oh Georgie, I am sure you must have something pithy to say... No I don't lisp.**

Pity, that.

Anyway, my researcher, One-Putt, came up with these stats (Although I had to help him with the Bode Miller totals)

Bode Miller 3,150,000 hits
Mithelle Wie 2,430,000 hits
Morgan Prethel 282,000
Paula Creamer 257,000
Annika Thorenstam 1,020,000
Natalie Gulbith 324,000 **

Maybe Mithelle's people can talk to Bode's people.
There's still time for Mithelle and Bode to co-author "Sports Victories for Dummies."

-George"

Sorry George you have me confused with someone else here, I never posted internet hit stats, only "golf stats". It happens at your age and I understand fully. Try turning the valve on your oxygen bottle open a couple more turns.

Whine all you want about how the Rolex rankings were created, they are what they are and the LPGA was involved in their creation everyday of the process. Here are some facts:

The women's ranking, sponsored by Rolex, will be published every Tuesday and used as criteria for getting into tournaments such as the LPGA Championship, the Women's British Open and the HSBC Women's World Match Play.

"The Rolex Rankings make nationality, tour membership and amateur or professional status virtually invisible, providing a definitive answer to the question, 'Who are the best women golfers in the world?'" LPGA Tour Commissioner Carolyn Bivens said.

The system is similar to the men's ranking. It measures performance over two years, with emphasis placed on the most recent 13-week period. Points are assigned based on the strength of field, then divided by the number of tournaments played.

Carolyn is satisfied with the process and that is good enough for me.

Annika is the "Best" female golfer in the known Universe.

Michelle is the "Second Best" female golfer in the known Universe.

At least for this week anyway.

"The system is similar to the men's ranking. It measures performance over two years, with emphasis placed on the most recent 13-week period. Points are assigned based on the strength of field, then divided by the number of tournaments played.
Carolyn is satisfied with the process and that is good enough for me.
Annika is the "Best" female golfer in the known Universe.
Michelle is the "Second Best" female golfer in the known Universe.
At least for this week anyway."

Bullshit! If the Rolex uses data from the last 15 starts, w/ emphisis on the last 13, There is no way Wie can be 2nd, or 3rd. She doesn't have 15, or even 13 starts. So how can she even be considered at all? And, how many points were awarded for cheating at the Samsung World Championship? So let's see...a 3rd place and a dead last (for cheating), hummmm, let's say maybe she could be 30th, at best. Actually she deserves "0", since she should not even be on the list.

Wie was charged or credited with a start at Samsung--and did receive ZERO points, the same as what Creamer got when she was DQed.

At Fields the winner got close to 72 pts, second got close to 36 and Wie at third got close to 24. Exact numbers differ since lower ranked players face tougher fields--but it appears thst 2nd is woth 1/2 of first, and third is worth 1/3.

Well, I will change my name to jay Z because I don't want to be confused with new jay who doesn't belong to pro wie camp.

John D, So you disagree with who is on the list for the Rolex Womens rankings! I am sure that if you get in touch with one or all of the organizations listed below, they will just go ahead and change things for you.
Please let us know what decide.

The Rolex Rankings are sanctioned by the five major women's professional golf Tours: Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA); Ladies European Tour (LET); Ladies Professional Golfers' Association of Japan (JLPGA); Korea Ladies Professional Golf Association (KLPGA); and the Australian Ladies Professional Golf (ALPG), as well as the Ladies' Golf Union (LGU), which administers the Weetabix Women's British Open.

I am sure that any of these fine organizations will listen to you.

one-putt don't you find it at least a little strange that "the second best women's golfer in the universe" has not actually won a golf tournament. It doesn't strike you as odd that her "A" game on the final day of an LPGA event not involving Annika Sorenstam was not good enough to win, Meena Lee has about as undistinguished LPGA record as one could imagine. You don't think that with all the power, shots, spin, talent, trainers, coaches and potential she could have just one time put it altogether and win. Her best has consistently come up short in her near 30 appearences as an amateur and a professional on the LPGA tour. Granted she was extremely young when she first arrived, but for the past couple of years she has had the physical maturity and game to win and she has not. Amy Yang and other teens have proved that you can win on tour at a young age(yes I know that this was not the LPGA, but then again Amy Yang is no Michelle Wie when it comes to overall game and talent). I just can not think of a another sport where the 2nd best player in the world has never won and I find it dubious. For this reson I find the Rolex rankings to be a joke. Michelle Wie is consistent, I'll give her that, but if I needed a golfer to make a clutch putt to win a tournament or just a golfer to close out a tournament in general Michelle would be way down on that list.

Comment from: John D [Visitor]
Bull! If the Rolex uses data from the last 15 starts, w/ emphisis on the last 13, There is no way Wie can be 2nd, or 3rd. She doesn't have 15, or even 13 starts. So how can she even be considered at all? And, how many points were awarded for cheating at the Samsung World Championship? So let's see...a 3rd place and a dead last (for cheating), hummmm, let's say maybe she could be 30th, at best. Actually she deserves "0", since she should not even be on the list.


I the last two years her 16 events are:

3 2006 Fields Open in Hawaii, Ko Olina Golf Club, February 23-25
DQ Samsung World Championship- Palm Desert, Calif., October 13-16
T3 Weetabix Women's British Open- Royal Birkdale, July 28-31
T2 2005 Evian Masters, Evian Masters Golf Club, July 20-23
T23 2005 US Women?s Open- Cherry Hills Village, CO, June 23-26
2 2005 LPGA Championship- Havre de Grace, Maryland, June 9-12
T14 2005 Kraft Nabisco Championship- Rancho Mirage, CA, March 24-27
T12 2005 Safeway International- Superstition Mountain, AZ, March 17-20
T2 2005 SBS Open at Turtle Bay Resort- Palmer Course, February 24-26
T13 2004 Samsung World Championship, BIGHORN Canyons Course, CA, October 14-17
T6 2004 Wendy's Championship for Children, OH, August 19-22
T33 2004 Evian Masters, France, July 21-25
T13 2004 U.S. Women's Open, Orchards Golf Club, South Hadley, MA, July 1-4
T12 2004 Michelob Ultra Open at Kingsmill, VA, May 6-9
4 2004 Kraft Nabisco Championship, Rancho Mirage, CA, March 25-28
T19 2004 Safeway International, Arizona, March 18-21

She made every cut and her lowest finishes are a DQ and a T33

John D please refrain from using profanity in a feeble attempt to bolster your position. It is after all Ash Wednesday.

Wie rely on documented facts to support our claims; not a foul mouth or some incoherant ravings put forth in a weak attempt to disprove same facts.

Just as a point of interest.
In the 2005 tournaments she entered she beat Annika 2 times, beat Paula 5 times.
No, she didn't win these tournaments but then neither did the worlds number one woman player beat her in 2 of them nor did Paula beat her in 5 of them. As well, Paula missed a cut last year if I remember correctly.Michelle didn't miss a cut in any of her LPGA entries in 2005.
Ok, here it comes...and she was only 15 years old.
I think that is why so many people are interested in watching her play. You can whine about all things you dislike about her handling, her place in the rankings and her endorsements but you cannot dny her abilities.
Oh yeah, and I believe she will win at least one tournament this year.

Well, the folks at Rolex and the LPGA got their wish. By publishing their "rankings", they got publicity. By deliberately selecting the right number of tournaments that would allow Michelle Wie to be "ranked", they generated buzz for themselves.

No such thing as bad publicity.

Here is the only fact that matters three-putt. Michelle Wie has not won. She can be ranked #1 in the world for all I care, but she will never deserve the high ranking until she does. Consistency is great, but ask any pro and they will tell you that winning is what matters. I am still waiting for somebody to find a sport where you can be ranked #2 in the world, without proving that you can win. I think Michelle is a great golfer, but listening to her fans hail every near miss and crow about her ranking makes me throw up in my mouth a little. With each top 5 her legend grows, somehow losing to an unheralded South Korean on your own turf makes all the ridicoulous expectations seem possible. You Wie fans can have your stats comparing her results to those of Tiger's, but I will stick with what I see and that is a talented girl with lots of potential who has exhibited a tendency to just come up short when it matters. My eyes see someone who has yet to win on her own tour and struggles with a balky putter. If you're eyes see the future of golf and someone who will contend on the PGA then I have an Ophthalmologist you should see.

POINTS CORRECTION

It looks like Michelle Wie actually got about 34 points for her second place finish--but she also lost about 10.5 points or so when her T2 from last year's Fields got to be ove a year old. She tied that one with Kerr, who actually lost ranking points despite a 9th/10th place tie at Fields. I suspect the rankings points drop to 2/3 of the original value after 13 weeks, and down to 1/3 after a year. Points available for Majors are probably greater. Roughly twice as much???

It looks like the points scale is similar to that for US Solheim Cup--except for the added points for the most recent 13 weeks. Wins are worth twice the value of 2nds--and from there points decline slowly but steadily--probably a little faster for the world rankings. I don't know if Majors are worth double in the world rankings.

"Comment from: TaylorMade [Visitor]
Here is the only fact that matters three-putt. Michelle Wie has not won."

So with that misguided logic everyone who has not won an LPGA event in the last two years should not appear on the list.

With Annika winning 10 events on the tour last year and 8 wins in 2004 that list would become very short indeed.

Will you tell Natalie Gulbis the bad news? I don't have the heart too.

Can anyone name one woman besides Annika who should be higher ranked than Michelle Wie? If so, we can see who does better in the first Major of the year--the Kraft.

John D said:

Well if they are based on 15events, how can someone with only one event be ranked?
******************************

John, are you very confused or what?
She has actually played 16 events in that period.
It is pretty hard to believe that you missed 15 of those events, buts since you have stated that she only played 1, here are her results:
2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 12, 12, 13, 13, 14, 19, 23, 33, dq

Jay said:
Regarding the Rolex rankings, I think we all agree that there needs to be some adjustments to the Japanese LPGA points. There is really not much debate on that.
***********************************

Yes there does need to be an adjustment to these rankings, but it is important to note, that if the Japanese events were downgraded, Paula Creamers 2 recent wins would be worth much less and she would lose alot of ranking points. This would make Wie a much stronger number 2, which I guess could be considered fair.

Jay said:
The current system does not award 1st place as much as it should. Instead of 60, probably should double it to 120.
********************************

That's just silly. Winning shouldn't be worth 4 times, that of 2nd place.

Christie Kerr has 5 wins in the last 2 years. However she has also missed 3 cuts in her last 7 starts of 2005. For rankings, you have to be a consistant performer, not just someone who wins, and then has a bad week after. In any fair ranking system, consistantly good performances bring rewards.

John D said:
Bullshit! If the Rolex uses data from the last 15 starts, w/ emphisis on the last 13, There is no way Wie can be 2nd, or 3rd. She doesn't have 15, or even 13 starts. So how can she even be considered at all? And, how many points were awarded for cheating at the Samsung World Championship? So let's see...a 3rd place and a dead last (for cheating), hummmm, let's say maybe she could be 30th, at best. Actually she deserves "0", since she should not even be on the list.
***********************************

John D,
You have shown your complete lack of knowledge in this area. The emphasis is actually on the last 13 weeks, not on the last 13 starts. So it works the same for everyone.

Wie actually has 16 starts in the 2 year period. If you watch golf occasionally, you should know that.
As regards the Samsung, Wie was disqualified and received zero points, and this took down her average quite a bit.

Without the dq, Wie would be at 10.70 or maybe higher instead of her current 10.03
So whe would be much further ahead of the 9.44 that Paula Creamer has.

Taylormade said:
Consistency is great, but ask any pro and they will tell you that winning is what matters.
***************************

Actually there are many things that matter to a professional golfer. Here are some of them:
- winning, titles.
- money, financial security and enough money to have good home golfing practice facilities, good coaching and advice, and enough to travel comfortably, and have a couple of houses and some apartments so you can live a few months in other areas when your home country isn't most suitable for golf.
- performance, enough to retain a tour card, and build ranking points. Trying to amass enough ranking points to get into bigger golf tournaments.

In all of that, winning is an ultimate goal, but not at the start of a career. Wie should concentrate on performance and winning will happen.

James Coulthard said:
Can anyone name one woman besides Annika who should be higher ranked than Michelle Wie? If so, we can see who does better in the first Major of the year--the Kraft.
*********************************

Sorry James, I don't think you will have any takers on that.

MW is one year older and I think she is playing better this year since turning pro. With three large endorsement contracts and school commitment, she shows she muster pressure like no one else. I think possibly this year or next, she will prove that she is better than Paula hands down and a good chance than the Swede. The possibility of having an american-born (regardless her ethnic heritage) as a contender who can knock off the Swede sounds sweet. Is there anyone living in America who doesn't ethnic heritage? Only natives I know are the Indians who have been living on this land long before colonization.

One Putt

** Sorry George you have me confused with someone else here **

Sorry for mixing you up with your fellow lunatic from the Wie Warrior camp.

-George

Comment from: John Neal [Visitor]
While I am not absolutely certain, I believe that the ratio of first to second to third, etc is based on the ratio used to award the prize money which is an exponential scale. Therefore if 1st is 60 and 3rd is 20 then second was around 35.

Do you really think that winning is six times more important than coming in third when only one stroke separated the two position?
03/01/06 @ 00:46
*****************************
First of all, let me clarify that I am a pro-Wie camp, so no need to change names to Jay Z for that reason, of course helps to avoid confusion to other readers.

The reason I mentioned the need to give more points to 1st place is because the critics of wie always beats on the "no-win-wie" argument. I haven't heard any strong argument against that, but I have to agree with Neal that the current pointing system is fair. From a capitalist point of view, I would take three 2nd places over one 1st place(ie more money). Maybe winning is too overrated compared to consistency.

They say in MLB, any MLB player can hit a home run on a given day, but not many players can hit with an average over 3.0 over the whole season.....

Regards,

Comment from: george [Visitor]
One Putt

** Sorry George you have me confused with someone else here **

Sorry for mixing you up with your fellow lunatic from the Wie Warrior camp.

-George

Apology accepted George. I'm glad you rolled the wheelchair off the oxygen line.

"Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
James Coulthard said:
Can anyone name one woman besides Annika who should be higher ranked than Michelle Wie? If so, we can see who does better in the first Major of the year--the Kraft.
*********************************

Sorry James, I don't think you will have any takers on that."

I've been scratching my head here guys trying to think of a woman who should be ranked higher than Michelle. HMMMMMMMM!!!

NOPES! MICHELLE WIE COMES OUT AS THE SECOND BEST FEMALE GOLFER ON THE ENTIRE PLANET AND THE NEIGHBORING GALAXIES!!!!

After all ROLEX is known worldwide for accurate time pieces and I know with their reputation on the line they would produce an accurate ranking of women golfers.

Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]

I've been scratching my head here guys trying to think of a woman who should be ranked higher than Michelle. HMMMMMMMM!!!

NOPES! MICHELLE WIE COMES OUT AS THE SECOND BEST FEMALE GOLFER ON THE ENTIRE PLANET AND THE NEIGHBORING GALAXIES!!!!
*********************************************

One-Putt

I have done my share of scratching and I have the same conclusion as yours.

However, there is this name Yuri Fodoh everyone is talking about. Currently ranks 4th. She seems to know how to win. I have never seen her play on tv so besides her and Annika I won't bet my money on any other female golfer who can beat MW.

"Comment from: Luis [Visitor]

However, there is this name Yuri Fodoh everyone is talking about."

Who is talking about her Luis?

Seach result:

There's no record for a player with a name containing "Yuri Fodoh" in the LPGA Tour database.

She must be doing very well on the JLPGA Tour as Paula Creamer did in 2005.

** Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor **

** I'm glad you rolled the wheelchair off the oxygen line **

No problem. Despite your weight, it was my duty to return you to your private room before you scratched yourself too badly.

-George

One Putt.

Excuse my spelling. It is Yuri Fudoh.

Every article that I came across which is critical of the Rolex ranking mentioned this name.

I was being a little bit sarcastic when I said she could beat MW.

To those who doesn't like the Rolex ranking I found another ranking from Golfweek.

http://www.golfweekrankings.com/sagarin/Default.asp

Michelle doesn't have enough tournament to be officially ranked. However, she is currently ranked 658th in the PGA. As of LPGA I don't dare post it in this BLOG.

Luis, Wie is rated in the Sagarin rating at the end where he rates players with less than 10 tournaments. She would be rated 2nd, halfway between Annika and Paula.

I agree that the jlpga is getting too much importance in the rankings.
If they fix this, Creamer will lose alot of points though.

This was from an article I found on Michelle Wie comparing her win-loss record with other golfers and offers a somewhat explanation why Michelle is ranked so high.

http://golf.about.com/b/a/2006_03_02.htm

? Annika Sorenstam: Sorenstam leads Wie 13-3-1, the only player Golfweek looked at who has a winning record against Wie.
However, Wie leads 2-1-1 over Annika their past four common events.

? Paula Creamer: Wie leads 9-3-1
? Christie Kerr: Wie leads 11-10-1
? Juli Inkster: Wie leads 11-7
? Natalie Gulbis: Wie leads 13-8
? Morgan Pressel: Wie leads 3-1
? Yuri Fudoh: Wie leads 4-1
? Grace Park: Tied 10-10-1 (but since 2004, Wie leads 9-6-1)
? Jeong Jang: Wie leads 13-10 (since 2004, Wie's lead is 11-5)

hoo boy, that'll definitely get the bashers into feeding frenzy mode. Good stuff, Cheryl

Wie is also 5-0 against Ai Miyazato.

It is not the JLPGA that has raised Paula Creamrer's rating--it is tournament weighting. As far as I can tell, recent events(13 weeks) get triple points, others within a year get double points--while events between 1 and 2 years old get single points. Yet all these tournaments count the same when we determine the number of tournaments. Suppose we count the most recent triple point tournaments as 3 events, the doubles as 2 events and the singles as one. With a larger divisor, ratings will be lower. If we now multiply all ratings by 25/16 Wie's ratomg will be unchanged. Annika will increase from 18.57 to 19.02, Cristie Kerr will drop from 6.76 to 6.73. However, Paula Creamer will drop from 9.44 to 8.04. That is because she has less than 20% of her tournaments getting single points--while the others have close to 50%.

With all the controversy about Wie's 2nd place position in the Rolex ranking, I decided to look up the #4 golfer Yuri Fudoh's events outside of Japan I could find. I realize her high rating is a result of JLPGA events, but a world class player should be able to do well playing against the best in any venue.

Following is her US/UK record for 2004-2005:

2004 US Women's Open: mc by 6 strokes
2005 Kraft Nabisco: T39
2005 US Women's Open: mc by 6 strokes
2005 British Open: T15

She did well in the Mizuno Classic (T3) but that was in Japan.

They really need to change the weighting differences between the different tours.

"Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
With all the controversy about Wie's 2nd place position in the Rolex ranking,"

What controversy Paul? We all know the rankings are spot on for Michelle and have been saying so for months. Rolex just validated what Norman, I and a few others have been saying all along.

If Michelle had been a Pro all of 2005, she would have earned an average of over $90,000 a start for only eight LPGA events. That is second (2nd place) only to Annika in productivity per event played.

Paula Creamer on the other hand played in 25 events and averaged a little over $60,000 per event. She was also eligible for the LPGA cash piling on events at the end of the season.

Now if Michelle only played the same number of events as Annika (20) and maintained the same productivity of 90K plus each, she would easily have placed #2 on the ADT money list without playing 25 events or even winning an event.

The ROLEX rankings confirm this as fact.

Now the Crotch Rashes will dispute this by saying she has never won anything or give some other lame reason why she shouldn't be given credit for her consistency of play.

One has to ask themselves why Morgan would not want Michelle in the U.S. Open? The same reason the other Pros don't want her to play, they know she can score low and eventually the floodgates will open. She was the third round leader at the last U.S. Women's Open, shot plus eight in the final day and still finished in 23rd place. She is a year older and wiser this year so don't expect a repeat.

Morgan was intimitated by Michelle's level of play in the final round of the Fields, pure and simple. She was a spanked child at the end.

Creamer was also on the verge of tears when she played with wie in same pairing first time in lpga tournament at 2004 wendy's championship.
It should have been disheartening for pressel to see wie hit 6 iron in par 3 while she had to hit 5 wood.

Jim Coulthard said
It is not the JLPGA that has raised Paula Creamrer's rating--it is tournament weighting.
******************************

No Jim, you are misunderstanding my comment. I said that the jpga events are awarded too much points. Paula Creamer won two of these events and because they are recent, they are worth even more.
If the jpga events were brought downwards as regards ranking points that would affect Creamers ranking.
The other issue you raised also affects points but is a seperate issue.

The same people who are bashing Baldwin (somewhat justified) for ripping a 16-year old are responding by ripping a 19-year old (Creamer) and a 17-year old (Pressel).

Oh, and Wie tried the Japanese tour and the supposed lower quality. She missed the cut. So don't just assume that the Japanese LPGA or the European Order of Merit are crappy tours. Winning on those is still a greater accomplishment than missing the cut in a PGA tournament. Especially when you're given a sponsor's exemption into the tournament as a publicity stunt or novelty act.

"The same people who are bashing Baldwin (somewhat justified) for ripping a 16-year old are responding by ripping a 19-year old (Creamer) and a 17-year old (Pressel).

Oh, and Wie tried the Japanese tour and the supposed lower quality. She missed the cut. So don't just assume that the Japanese LPGA or the European Order of Merit are crappy tours."

Well Crotch Rash I can think of one point five million reasons why Michelle played the Casio.

If you were good enough to stand on the first tee of any professional event (including an LPGA event) I might believe what you have to say. The fact is Crotch Rash you don't have enough golf skill to carry Michelle's bag in a match. Maybe as a Red Cap at some airport you could get away with it.

JLPGA events may be over-rated, but they are certainly not rated on a par with lpga EVENTS. In the first rankings for events in 2004 and 2005--Kerr had 333 pts in 48 events, with 3 wins in 2004 and 2 in 2005. Yuri Fudoh had 369 pts in 50 events with 7 wins in 2004 and 6 in 2005. It looks like the Japanese events cannot be worth more than half the points of LPGA events.

ToddCommish said:
Oh, and Wie tried the Japanese tour and the supposed lower quality. She missed the cut. So don't just assume that the Japanese LPGA or the European Order of Merit are crappy tours.
*****************************

I have said that the jlpga, that's ladies japanese tour is weak.
The event Wie tried in Japan was a MENS EVENT. The men's event is not of a lower quality, but yes the womens tour in Japan is of a far lower quality than the lpga.
As an example Ai Mirayato, who is a very good player on the Japanese Womens Tour with many wins, entered a Japanese Mens Tour event. She came last and missed the cut by about 14 strokes. So I think this shows the difference between the Japanese Mens and Ladies Tours. Wie on the other hand only missed the Mens Japanese Tour cut by 1 shot only.


The European Mens Tour by the way is an excellent tour with an excellent standard. The mens Japanese Tour is also of a very good standard, but that is not the issue. The issue is the womens' game.
In the womens game, the lpga is by far the superior tour, and even the ladies tour in Europe is way way behind it.

Norman I think we are wasting our time trying to educate the ignorant.

One-Putt,
it astounds me how the anti-Wie brigade mix up facts. Sometimes I wonder if they watch any golf or have any interest in the sport.

I couldn't agree with you more. Check out Baldwin's blog Norman. It is brutal.

BTW keep us posted on your status this season and good luck.

What can we expect from Michelle Wie in the Majors? If Wie couldn't win on her own course without Annika in the field--why would anyone expect her to do better in a Major with Annika there in the field?

Since George was so kind as to point out that I predicted two Majors for Wie in 2006(following last year's British), I would like to offer some reasons why something like that could happen. Obviously a lot could depend upon how well Annika plays--she was in a mid-season slump when I made the prediction last year--but if Michelle Wie can only finish third at the Fields it might seem that Michelle Wie would not be able to win even if Annika were off her game. I would like to address this issue.

Something strange was going on at the Fields Open. 3 women averaged over 310 yards driving. Paula Creamer averaged over 290--and Morgan Pressel was able to reach a par 5 in two shots. This does not seem like a normal situation, and it is a situation that took away from the advantage Wie would normally have as a big hitter.

In addition, Wie hit 3 nearly identical tee shots into the rough on 13. I wonder whether the course was playing different than normal--and these tee shots were ones that would normally work out well for her. Remember, while she has extensive experience on the course--most of it is from the longer men's tees. Perhaps the course had not played this way in the previous month while she had been using the women's tees. Sometimes local knowledge can be a disadvantage if a course is playing very differently than it usually does.

The Kraft and the LPGA Championship are played on courses that seem to fit Wie's game very well. She has done well in these events in the past. Only Annika beat her in last year's LPGA Championship. I believe Michelle is a better player now. Whether she will beat Annika remains to be seen--but I do not see the Field's results as providing evidence that she either cannot or will not.

George wrote: (on MW winning 4 majors)

... or even 1 tournament.

Does that sound impossible too, Brian?
_________________________________________

FOUR of her eight tournaments ARE majors, George, and another (The Evian) is considered the 5th major, and another (The Samsung) has only the top 20 female golfers in the world in it. That leaves only 2 others, and she finished 3rd in that one, beating all but one of the top 10 on the money list (Annika was not there)

She WILL win at least one major this year, George! And you can take that to the bank!

In the lpga money, list where Pressel and Creamer have played 2 events,

11th Morgan Pressel $50,760
14th Paula Creamer $29,950


Wie would slot in, in 7th place with $73,227 in just one tournament.

Isn't it funny that Wie in one tournament has won nearly as much as the combined earnings of Pressel and Creamer in 2 tournament each.

That is 4 tourantment for them and they have won $80,710 to Wie's $73,227 in just 1 tournament.

One-Putt, thanks for the good luck message.

Funnily enough, you could hardly have had better timing.

Unfortunately my comments here will probably be much less, or maybe that is fortunate!

Anyway, it has been nice to comment on some of these blogs but it should be much more fun to acutally play some golf.

So hopefully One-Putt and Jim Coulthard and all the other Wie Warriers will keep up the Wie defences and I'll certainly be dipping in and and of here when I can, although maybe not so much.

Best of luck and I'll let you know if I qualify for a major.

Oh, there should be a special mention to Paul W and Patrick and the other Wie Wariers.

And to the adversaries like Under Par and John Zedella, your arguments have certainly been interesting if nothing else.

Enjoy your golf and enjoy the talent of Wie.

Good luck Norman, I'll look for you on the Open top 10!

Norman,

Good luck on the coming season! May you hit 'em long and straight.

Except, if you happen to make the Ryder's Cup team, then may you develop a week long, inexplicable slice out-of-bounds!:-)

Jim COULTHARD: In addition, Wie hit 3 nearly identical tee shots into the rough on 13.
***************************************

Thanks for offering up at least one potential explanation for this phenomenon. When three identical tee shots on three successive rounds land inside a 10 foot circle, it seems apparent that Michelle used exactly the same set up, and exactly the same swing three times in a row.

Why she would do this when the results were so disasterous seems unexplainable unless it looked, and felt, to Michelle like the right setup every time based on her extensive experience with the course. If any of her advisors--caddy, coaches, parents, et al--had seen anything out of the ordinary in what whe was doing, I am sure she would have changed something one of the three days.

My personal suspicion is that it was unnaturally calm all three days and that normally when she played that hole there was a prevailing left to right wind blowing that would carry the drive back into the fairway. Bearing in mind that she was shooting for the narrowest portion of the fairway with water, bunkers and trees on the right-hand side, the "safe" mistake is definitely to the left on this drive. I think her extensive experience of the course kept her from making the necessary adjustment to the right. But that is purely speculation on my part. I would love to hear alternate explanations.

Maybe Wie was a bit rusty with her driver on 13. The previous par 5 was the 5th hole and I don't think she used her driver much on the par 4s.

Comment from: John Neal [Visitor]
Jim COULTHARD: In addition, Wie hit 3 nearly identical tee shots into the rough on 13.

I would love to hear alternate explanations.

Just one explanation....David Ledbetter messed with a good thing.

Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
In the lpga money, list where Pressel and Creamer have played 2 events,

11th Morgan Pressel $50,760
14th Paula Creamer $29,950


Wie would slot in, in 7th place with $73,227 in just one tournament.

Isn't it funny that Wie in one tournament has won nearly as much as the combined earnings of Pressel and Creamer in 2 tournament each.

That is 4 tourantment for them and they have won $80,710 to Wie's $73,227 in just 1 tournament.

Michelle is behind her average for this time last year by five thousand bucks and only a third place finish. At the 2005 SBS she came in second.

Norman, did you notice a change in her swing from last year? It does not seem as long on the backswing or as smooth on the downswing as last season or before.

Jennifer Mario Said:
`I wonder how long people will keep complaining about her ranking.'

Well, as long as you have Baldie, timmy and Nessy around, there will be whining and sniveling from the trenchs. I mean, how else could they feed themselves? Gotta keep those blog hits hi.

No change to the Rolex Top Ten this week.

No change Jennifer, but Juli Inkster in 10th place had a lead of .33 over the 11th place, which has been cut to just .13

How is Juli in the top 10 anyway?

The ranking just doesn't matter. I was pleased to see Wie come in second in the tournament and the one who has been doing the name calling finish back a ways.